US Foreign Military Bases Aren’t ‘Defense’

“U.S. foreign military bases are the principal instruments of imperial
global domination and environmental damage through wars of aggression and occupation.”
That’s the unifying claim of the Coalition
Against US Foreign Military Bases (noforeignbases.org), and it’s true
as far as it goes. But as a signer of the Coalition’s endorsement form,
I think it’s worth taking the argument a bit further. The maintenance of
nearly 1,000 US military bases on foreign soil isn’t just a nightmare for
peaceniks. It’s also also an objective threat to US national security.

A reasonable definition of “national defense,” it seems to me, is
the maintenance of sufficient weaponry and trained military personnel to protect
a country from, and effectively retaliate against, foreign attacks. The existence
of US bases abroad runs counter to the defensive element of that mission and
only very poorly supports the retaliatory part.

Defensively, scattering US military might piecemeal around the world –
especially in countries where the populace resents that military presence –
multiplies the number of vulnerable American targets. Each base must have its
own separate security apparatus for immediate defense, and must maintain (or
at least hope for) an ability to reinforce and resupply from elsewhere in the
event of sustained attack. That makes the scattered US forces more, not less,
vulnerable.

When it comes to retaliation and ongoing operations, US foreign bases are stationary
rather than mobile, and in the event of war all of them, not just the ones engaged
in offensive missions, have to waste resources on their own security that could
otherwise be put into those missions.

They’re also redundant. The US already possesses permanent, and mobile,
forces far better suited to projecting force over the horizon to every corner
of the planet on demand: Its Carrier Strike Groups, of which there are 11 and
each of which allegedly disposes of more firepower than that expended by all
sides over the entire course of World War Two. The US keeps these mighty naval
forces constantly on the move or on station in various parts of the world and
can put one or more such groups off any coastline in a matter of days.

The purposes of foreign US military bases are partly aggressive. Our politicians
like the idea that everything happening everywhere is their business.

They’re also partly financial. The main purpose of the US “defense”
establishment since World War Two has been to move as much money as possible
from your pockets to the bank accounts of politically connected “defense”
contractors. Foreign bases are an easy way to blow large amounts of money in
precisely that way.

Shutting down those foreign bases and bringing the troops home are essential
first steps in creating an actual national defense.

It could be added that to remove all the risks associated with these potential trip wires, would be an instant and fast boom to our economy. Even if only 50% were brought home, occupancy of vacant commercial space in depressed regions would help economy, and reduce costs of paying foreign governments rents and fees, not go mention expensive supplies of everything, from food to fuel. Especially as the bases over time become a key element of the economy in foreign countries, scewing their economic incentives, and rewarding parasitism. In fact, many had made it into art form. Former crime gang members, and now politicians in Kosovo know that attacking Christian churches and monasteries is profitable — NATO forces (KFKR) are then required to stay in Kosovo till doomsday, 24-7-365, to guard the most prominent objects, as well as the barbed wire surrounded Serb “enclaves”. It is a good trap, as US did everything to recognize rhis “new democracy”, and has to defend all of its bad behavior. so, we have to grin and pay up. The matia loves us there. In Pristina, statue od Bill Clinton towers over the gratefull populace. This is the lovefest between politicians that love “success stories”, profit makers, and Koeovo crime families. Last time we hesitated to give them what they wanted, they wenton a rampage agains Christians — and we recognized their state, against all norms of law and decency. So, Camp Bondsteel is there to stay.

Stefan Reich

> Shutting down those foreign bases and bringing the troops home

Yes, and then making them non-troops.

JimBass56

They’ll be first in line for LEO jobs. From one occupation to another. What could go wrong?

curmudgeonvt

They’re already first in line, it seems.

wars r u.s.

They even get to use the same toys.

Mark Thomason

There have been times when some foreign military bases were defensive preparation in peacetime. For example, the access to British bases acquired in the Caribbean just before WW2 in the “destroyers for bases deal” was a defensive preparation for the potential event of British defeat — which did look possible at that time.

That highlights what it takes for a base to be true defense. There needs to be an imminent credible risk that the base defends against.

Our bases are everywhere. They are not specific to any threat. They are instead a vulnerability to threats.

Frederick the Great propounded a theory that Napoleon openly quoted and adopted, which is a good recommendation — he who attempts to defend everywhere actually defends nowhere. The dispersion of effort leaves nothing properly defended, and just multiplies targets for the enemy. This has been a principle of military thinking for 250 years accepted by the greatest leaders of those times.